[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4306-H4314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1429, IMPROVING HEAD START ACT OF
2007
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 348
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to
improve program quality, to expand access, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11
of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1429
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
[[Page H4307]]
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 348 provides for consideration of H.R.
1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor. The rules waive all points of order against the
bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule
makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for 12 amendments, all
contained in the committee report.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 40 years Head Start has served as the
premier educational and developmental program for more than 20 million
American children and families. Head Start works. It works because it
is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative that combines children's
educational needs with health care and parent outreach.
This comprehensive approach to child health, nutrition and learning
is one of our best tools to tackle the achievement gap in education for
children living in poverty across our Nation.
The achievement gap begins far before children enter elementary
school. Head Start tackles the achievement gap through cognitive,
social and emotional child development, each of which is a key
contributor to entering elementary school prepared to succeed.
Today 20 percent of America's 12 million children under age 6 live in
poverty. We know that a family's income level greatly affects their
children's access to educational opportunities. The reality of poverty
for so many children, unfortunately, is tied to low success rates in
our classrooms. This is true in my home State of Florida. In my
community in the Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children currently are
served by Head Start, but many thousands more are on waiting lists and
are eligible.
They are on waiting lists because for so many years previous
Congresses have failed to reenact Head Start, and the White House has
proposed flat-line budgets, so our kids merely have been treading
water. With no improvements or increases in funding since 2003, and
inflation going up, it has become more difficult to maintain the well-
known, high-quality elements in Head Start.
The good news is that this new Congress will change that today and
make the smartest investment for our country's future workforce. We are
going to put more kids on the path to success when we pass this bill
and rule today.
This bill will improve teacher and classroom quality, strengthen the
focus on school readiness, expand access to thousands more children
across America, strengthen comprehensive services, increase the number
of children in early Head Start, because we are a lot smarter these
days based upon the research that has been done on early child
development and the development of the brain. We are going to allow
homeless children to enroll, and we are going to do a better job, my
colleague from Florida, for children who are just learning English.
On Monday, I paid a visit to the West Tampa Head Start Center and
delivered books to the kids and teachers to mark the four decades of
smashing success of this holistic, wraparound initiative that empowers
all of us. These children are eager and ready to learn if we give them
the tools.
We need to raise strong and healthy children. Head Start prepares
children to succeed in school and in life. The administration's slow-
motion cuts of Head Start over past years will now be reversed. The
American people stood up in November and asked for change, and today we
are going to stand up for them.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is very important for the future of our children that they develop
the skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success
later in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education
without the proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has
long-term effects on their education.
We must do all we can so that low-income children do not begin their
education at a disadvantage. That is why the Head Start program was
created.
In order to give children the proper foundation they need to begin
their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive early
childhood education development services. These services include child
development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other
activities. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten and
for their continued educational success.
In fiscal year 2005, the Head Start program provided developmental
services to over 900,000 children, 35,000 of them in my State of
Florida. Most of the children that receive the critical developmental
skills offered by the Head Start program come from low-income families,
and at Head Start they receive the early educational foundation to do
well in their later education and hopefully break the chain of poverty.
The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today builds on
the success of the program and improves its weaknesses. It authorizes
over $7 billion for fiscal year 2008, strengthens Head Start's academic
standards by emphasizing cognitive development and topics critical to
school readiness.
It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best
education possible. There are, Mr. Speaker, several provisions in the
underlying legislation that I believe will help with this goal. First,
the bill seeks to ensure that a greater number of Head Start teachers
are better trained and educated in early childhood development,
particularly in fundamental skills such as language, pre-reading and
pre-mathematics, within 2 years.
Competition encourages better quality. As recommended by a 2005 GAO
study, the bill seeks to increase competition among Head Start grantees
to help weed out poor performers and offer stronger programs.
The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how
Head Start funds are spent. This will help to fight financial abuse and
further ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged
children that they are meant to serve.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, Resident Commissioner
Fortuno offered an amendment to this legislation to allow religious
organizations to not ignore religion in their hiring practices. The
provision was included in previous Head Start reauthorization bills.
However, the majority on the Rules Committee blocked that amendment
from consideration today by the full House.
Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based
organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations.
Without the Fortuno amendment, faith-based Head Start grantees may
decide to stop offering Head Start programs. That would hurt the
children in those programs.
In 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services issued
regulations requiring any organization that receives direct financial
assistance from the Department, such as Head Start, to not engage in
inherently religious activities such as worship, religious instruction
or proselytizing as part of the program or services funded by HHS. So
objections to the Fortuno amendment, in my opinion, are unfounded.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I anticipate on the floor of the House today
we will hear some debate over the role of faith-based organizations in
Head Start. Republicans would like language that would repeal existing
civil rights protections in this Head Start law that ensure the
program's Federal funds discriminate, and we are opposed to that.
No citizen should have to pass a religious test to qualify for a
publicly
[[Page H4308]]
funded job. That is exactly what some on the other side of the aisle
will attempt to do today.
Religious organizations who run Head Start programs are not asking
for this change. They have written us to oppose it. Head Start teachers
and staff should be chosen because they are qualified and they are
effective teachers who will help children succeed and thrive. Hiring
and firing decisions should not be made because of a teacher's
religion.
This is part of an ongoing attempt, I am afraid, by some on the other
side of the aisle to make religion a wedge issue.
Democrats strongly support faith-based organizations running Head
Start programs, and H.R. 1429 on the floor today specifically reaffirms
that faith-based organizations may run Head Start programs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch), my colleague from the Rules Committee.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
from Florida for her national leadership on an issue of national
importance, Head Start.
Later today I will be joining with my colleagues, Representative
Space from Ohio, Representative Hare from Illinois, and Representative
Altmire from Pennsylvania to offer an amendment that will require the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to pay special attention to the
unique needs and challenges that our rural kids face to have access to
Head Start.
This is a great program, as was described by my colleague from
Florida, but there is a misconception oftentimes that Head Start is
about urban America, poor kids from cities. In fact, there are many
poor kids from rural America that benefit from access to Head Start,
and as a federally funded national program, we know the different
communities have different needs.
The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services,
in fact, acknowledged this when it issued a report that found several
issues to be particular challenges for rural America in access to Head
Start: transportation, workforce, enrollment fluctuation, performance
standards, health requirements and financial matching.
What we know is that one size does not fit all, but what we also know
is the opportunity for all is an essential American goal.
This amendment, when it is offered, is directing the Secretary to
make certain that those special challenges that our rural kids face in
America are included in an execution plan so that there will be
opportunity for the rural kids as well as the urban kids.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished ranking
member of the Education and Labor Committee.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and
appreciate the gentleman yielding time.
To be blunt, the rule before us is not worthy of the bill we will be
debating in just a short while. Let me be clear at the outset. I
support the improving Head Start Act and will vote for its final
passage later today. However, the rule before us restricts debate and
provides very little opportunity to improve this bill.
While I appreciate the Rules Committee making in order a few
Republican amendments, including ones offered by my Education and Labor
Committee colleague, Mr. Price of Georgia; my former committee
colleague, Mr. Porter of Nevada; and my friend, Mr. Putnam, this rule
is defined more by what it does not include than what it does include.
Yesterday, Mr. Fortuno submitted to the Rules Committee an amendment
to protect the civil rights of faith-based organizations wishing to
provide services to Head Start children. In the aftermath of September
11, Hurricane Katrina or any other tragedy, faith-based organizations
have been among the first to reach out a hand in service to those
impacted by the event. It does not take a large-scale catastrophe to
rally faith-based organizations into action, however. These groups are
working to assist their fellow Americans each and every day, focusing
on issues from job training to child care and everything in between.
Too often the Federal Government has ignored or impeded the efforts
of faith-based organizations willing to lend a helping hand in
providing critical services to the neediest in our communities. Mr.
Fortuno's amendment would have protected the rights of faith-based
groups to fully participate in serving Head Start children without
relinquishing their religious identities. And the majority turned it
away.
Mr. Speaker, they turned it away even though the 1964 Civil Rights
Act made clear when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious
basis, it is an exercise of the group's civil liberties. They turned it
away even though in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld
this right. And they turned it away even though former President Bill
Clinton signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to
staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds.
In its place, they allowed us to debate an amendment that applauds
the work of faith-based providers but fails to protect their civil
rights. This hollow amendment may provide certain Members of the
majority political cover, but in reality, it does nothing to protect
the constitutional rights of faith-based organizations seeking to serve
Head Start students.
This is just one example, the most significant of all, of how this
rule is not worthy of the bill we will be debating later today, and so
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Sutton), my colleague from the Rules Committee.
Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and of H.R.
1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.
Head Start is vital for our children in high-need areas, providing
them with programming critical to their cognitive development, from
math and reading instruction, to nutritional and social services for
students' families.
In 2006, over 900,000 children, almost all of them under 5 years old,
participated in Head Start.
In my home State of Ohio, Head Start serves more than 38,000 young
people, including more than 2,500 children in my congressional district
alone. These children come from some of the most high-need families in
our Nation, and Head Start does exactly what its name suggests. It
gives these children a head start, helping them achieve at or above
their age level by the time they leave the program.
Unfortunately, children in families facing difficult economic
situations often begin school behind their wealthier peers. Head Start
achieves amazing results for these children and is often the only
program keeping them from falling behind.
Despite the crucial role Head Start plays in the lives of hundreds of
thousands of American children, Congress has neglected them has
neglected to reauthorize or adequately fund this program for the past 4
years.
This important legislation authorizes funding for Head Start through
fiscal year 2012 and makes a number of long overdue improvements to the
program.
Our bill increases funding for teacher and staff salaries and
benefits and will improve the classroom environment by lowering the
student-to-teacher ratio. These changes will give our hardworking
teachers and other educational staff more opportunity to work with
their students and improve their academic performance.
This legislation also helps program hire and retain qualified
teachers and staff by increasing salary and benefits and supporting
professional development plans. And this bill will expand access to
10,000 additional children.
This Congress is making a commitment to our children and the Head
Start program, and it is critical that we do so. Research has shown
that children attending Head Start are more likely to graduate from
high school than other low-income children. Research has also proven
that children who attend Head Start are less likely to enter special
education, are less likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to end
up in the criminal courts in adolescence.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give more of our children the help
and assistance they need. With passage of
[[Page H4309]]
this legislation, we are not only providing our children with the
opportunity for a brighter future, we are building a brighter future
for our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill so we can keep our
promise to America's children.
{time} 1145
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. While I appreciate
the Rules Committee making in order several of the proposed amendments,
including an amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia to create a
State demonstration program that allows up to eight States to
coordinate Head Start with other State-run early childhood development
programs, this rule unfortunately limits improving the Head Start Act
further by not allowing for debate on several Republican amendments.
Although I oppose this rule, I do support the underlying bill, the
Improving Head Start Act of 2007 to reauthorize the Head Start program.
This legislation improves the Head Start Act by emphasizing that every
child, regardless of their economic status, should have the best chance
possible to succeed.
We all can agree on the need for Head Start and its successes. We
must also recognize that Head Start can produce even greater results
for children. Students who attend Head Start programs generally start
school more prepared than those with similar backgrounds that do not
attend Head Start. However, Head Start students continue to enter
kindergarten well below national norms in school readiness. By moving
to close the school readiness gap, this bill will improve results for
almost 1 million Head Start students across almost all of the Nation.
Towards the goal of closing the readiness gap, the Improving Head
Start Act of 2007 strengthens Head Start's academic focus while
maintaining its comprehensive nature. The bill improves the academic
focus of the program by establishing new quality standards that ensure
enrolled children develop and demonstrate language skills; prereading
knowledge, including an interest in and an appreciation of books,
reading and writing either alone or with others; premathematics
knowledge, such as recognition of numbers and counting; cognitive
abilities related to academic achievement; and social development
important for environments constructive for child development, early
learning and school success.
The Improving Head Start Act of 2007 builds upon the reforms of
previous reauthorizations of Head Start, as well as the requirements of
the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, and the vision of President Bush
and Secretary Leavitt. We all want to do what is best for our children,
and I truly believe the underlying bill does that.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from
Florida if he has any remaining speakers.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. We have two speakers remaining.
Ms. CASTOR. Our side has no remaining speakers, except for my
closing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, but
in opposition to this rule.
I would first like to talk a little bit about some of the unique
history of Head Start that I think is important as we move into the
discussions of the amendments and the bill itself.
Head Start is a moderately successful program. Because it's a
moderately successful program, often it's oversold. It's only
moderately successful, but it's very difficult to get any program to
succeed in the highest-risk populations of America, as we learned in No
Child Left Behind and other programs trying to reach those who have
been left behind by the economic growth of America, by the
opportunities in America, in the low-income urban communities and the
low-income suburban communities.
To have modest success is actually a tremendous accomplishment in
Head Start. So how did Head Start perform differently, and what was the
concept behind it that made it unique?
On the left and on the right, there would be, for lack of a better
word, a populist empowerment faction in both parties. In the sixties,
the community action movement said we need to stop the top-down
approach and do a more bottom-up approach and involve the communities
in poverty themselves in making their own decisions.
That entails certain risks, because they may not, when you let people
vote their own decisions and make their own decisions, do what
government exactly wants them to do, or what college-educated Ph.D.s
come into that community and think is best for that community.
One of the key debates last year when this came to the floor was
whether the Head Start policy councils should allow the parents to have
a vote. The bill was altered to take that vote away from parents and
basically make the parents hood ornaments; say we have parental
involvement, but take the breathing lifeblood of those Head Start
programs away.
I am very pleased that in this Congress, after seeing the probable
defeat on the House floor, had it not been blocked by the leaders of
both sides, it is now in this year's bill. Parents will continue to
have a vote and continue to make this a grassroots program.
But there is another part of this bill that I oppose, and there is an
amendment made in order under this rule that makes it even worse, and
that is to require 50 percent of the teachers to have a college degree.
That sounds like a great goal, but if you understand that this is
preschool, and part of the goal here was to get the parents involved,
unlike what's happening in the elementary schools and the high schools
in many of these urban and rural areas, the parents don't get involved.
Partly what happens in Head Start councils is parents get involved.
Often they get hired as teachers and teachers' aides. They are from the
community. There is research suggesting, and no research to the
contrary, that the net impact of moving to this 50 percent requirement
in 2013 is going to result in less teachers of color in the urban
areas. That's the practical net result.
Fewer parents will go to literacy courses and evolve then into
getting a GED and helping to teach their own kids. You will miss the
magic of this program, which is empowerment and getting the parents
involved, which is what we should be looking for in elementary schools.
There is an amendment to take the 2013 goal down to 2011, I believe.
That makes a bad clause worse. I hope that amendment gets defeated on
the floor.
There is one other amendment in this bill that is a bad amendment.
There is nothing wrong with the amendment, it's existing law. It's what
I would call a fake faith-based amendment. If an organization follows
all the secular rules in hiring and in principles, they have always
been, always been, eligible for government grants. The dispute that has
arisen in faith-based is not whether, if you have a secular board and
don't impose any religious principles on your organization, you can't
proselytize. That has already been ruled by the courts. You can't pray
if you get government funds during the time that any program is funded
by government. You can't refuse to cover somebody.
The question is can a faith-based organization that may have church
rules, for example, can only males be preachers or priests? Can you
have somebody who is homosexual in a church position in your church?
Can you fire somebody for adultery, things that many, if not most,
major Christian denominations, Orthodox Jews, Muslim organizations have
as rules in their denominations? They are not eligible under the
Democrat faith-based rule.
This is a legitimate debate. I grant that it's a legitimate debate,
and we have had it on the House floor. But we should not pretend that
we are protecting faith-based organizations, when we are, in fact,
taking away the historic civil rights protection that has always been
granted under, quote, faith-based. A religion is exempt from
[[Page H4310]]
normal rules in how they hire, because they believe they reflect their
faith.
Mr. Speaker, I ask to include into the Record an article by Ron
Sider, who has written a book that was much ballyhooed in the last
election cycle about the faith-based movement not just being
conservative right-wingers.
[From First Things]
The Case for ``Discrimination''
(by Ronald J. Sider)
I'm a long-time Democrat. In 1972, I organized a group
called ``Evangelicals for McGovern/Shriver'' and helped
McGovern sweep--well, the great state of Massachusetts.
As a Democrat, I have been deeply dismayed by how out of
touch with the American mainstream the party has proven to be
on the issue of faith-based initiatives, particularly on the
issue of the so-called hiring exemption. (For a discussion of
other aspects of the initiative, see Joseph Loconte,
``Keeping the Faith,'' FT, May.)
A vast majority of Americans believe that as a society we
have lost our moral moorings and that we must reaffirm the
role of religious faith in nurturing persons of integrity and
fostering a just, stable society. It is in that context that
we must evaluate the Democratic leadership's opposition to
allowing faith-based organizations that accept government
funds to show preference in hiring to those who embrace the
organization's basic religious beliefs and practices.
Democratic President Bill Clinton signed three Charitable
Choice bills that explicitly included this hiring exemption.
Presidential candidate Al Gore embraced Charitable Choice.
But when the Bush Administration's legislation expanding
Charitable Choice moved to the Senate in mid-2001, the
Democratic leadership blocked even the consideration of such
legislation--largely on the charge that the hiring exemption
amounted to employment discrimination.
In other words, the Democratic leadership has come to
believe that religious organizations must give up their long-
recognized right to hire staff who share their faith
commitments in order to receive federal money that provides
needed services to the public. In this, the Democrats are
wrong.
To begin with, a religious organization's decision to hire
staff who share its religious beliefs and practices is not an
example of intolerant discrimination, but rather a positive
act of freedom. In a free society, a wide variety of
organizations--environmental organizations, feminist groups,
unions--are left free to select staff who share their core
commitments and who agree with their agenda. This right does
not disappear if governments choose to request these private
organizations to perform some desired tasks. Planned
Parenthood, for example, does not lose its right not to hire
pro-life staff simply because it has a government contract.
It is precisely the denial of this right to religious
organizations that would amount to intolerant discrimination
instead of the promotion of a free and open society.
To equate this positive good with the evil of
discrimination on the basis of things like race or disability
is pure confusion. Whether we think that religion is a
medieval superstition or a true and good contributor to
social well-being, all who believe in religious freedom
should insist that religious organizations be permitted to
hire staff who share their religious beliefs.
The obvious fact is that the ability to choose staff who
share a religious organization's core beliefs is essential if
that organization wishes to retain its basic identity. As
Justice William Brennan wrote in Corporation of the Presiding
Bishop v. Amos (1987): ``Determining that certain activities
are in furtherance of an organization's religious mission and
that only those committed to that mission should conduct them
is . . . a means by which a religious community defines
itself.'' A Jewish organization forced to hire substantial
numbers of Baptist staffers, for example, will not long
remain a significantly Jewish organization.
Having staff who share a religious organization's essential
religious beliefs shapes the group's identity in a variety of
ways. Shared motivation, common values, a sense of community
and unity of purpose, shared experiences of prayer and
worship (even if they are outside work time in the
organization) all contribute to an esprit de corps and shared
organizational vision. As law professor Ira C. Lupu said in
testimony before a House subcommittee (June 7, 2001), ``The
sense of religious community and spirit on which [the]
success of the group's efforts depend'' may be hampered if it
is forced to hire those who do not share its beliefs.
This is important even when, for example, a faith-centered
organization chooses to separate by location or time (and
fund with private money) sectarian worship, instruction, and
proselytization in a program in order to receive direct
government grants. This is true for several reasons.
First of all, religious activities may be important to the
social service program, even though they are voluntary,
privately funded, and segregated from ``secular'' government-
funded activities. In such programs, holding certain
religious beliefs and practices is a legitimate qualification
for a staff position, equally as valid as having the right
skills and experience.
Second, enforced religious diversity can have the effect of
stifling religious expression of staff within the agency,
creating a climate of fear of offending other staff members
with religious speech or actions. Since personal faith is
very important to many who choose to work in a religious
organization, such a climate can diminish staff motivation
and effectiveness. Forced religious diversity can sap a
program's spiritual vitality and lead to its secularization.
Third, staff often play multiple roles in small
organizations. For example, an agency might seek someone to
work part-time as a youth minister and part-time as a social
worker for its youth mentoring program. Implementing a policy
in which religion could be considered as a factor in hiring
for some job duties but not others would lead to
unnecessarily complicated and impermissibly entangling
regulations.
But even leaving aside the effects of such regulation on
religious organizations themselves, the rationale behind it
makes little sense. The fact that a religious organization
accepts some federal funds does not mean that it ceases to be
an independent, autonomous entity and becomes an arm or agent
of the state. Law, precedent, and common sense all argue that
a private organization that accepts some government funds
still retains its separate identity. This is clearly the case
with colleges and universities that receive government
funding, scholars engaged in federally subsidized research,
and artists and artistic organizations funded by the National
Endowment for the Arts. All of these receive government
funding, and all maintain their autonomy from the government.
Similarly, a religious organization that receives government
funds to provide a public service that serves a public good
would maintain its autonomy and not be co-opted by
government.
Moreover, not only does allowing hiring preferences based
on religious belief within religious organizations pose no
social danger, it is the only way to avoid discrimination and
governmental preference of one religious view over another.
Using the typology of different types of faith-based
organizations recently published by the Working Group on
Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives chaired
by former Democratic Senator Harris Wofford helps explain
this point.
``Faith-saturated'' and ``faith-centered'' programs both
include substantial religious content in their programs and
hire (primarily or exclusively) employees who share their
beliefs precisely because their religious beliefs tell them
that persons are spiritual as well as material beings and
therefore the best results follow when spiritual and
material transformation are combined. ``Faith-related,''
``faith-background,'' and ``secular'' providers do not
include significant religious content in their program or
consider religious belief in their staffing because their
worldview tells them that all that is needed to correct
dysfunctional social behavior and social problems is
socio-economic, material transformation. All these
providers, not just the first two, are grounded in an
explicit or implicit religious perspective. Secular
providers work at least implicitly within a naturalistic
worldview (nothing exists except the natural world) that
functions in effect as a religious perspective.
Functionally, faith-related and faith-background providers
operate with deistic religious beliefs (God exists but
never intervenes in the natural world of cause and
effect). Naturalism and deism, however, are just as much
particular religious worldviews as the historic theism
that undergirds most faith-saturated and faith-centered
programs.
Obviously, if government only funds some private providers
of services (i.e., the naturalistic and deistic ones that do
not explicitly use religious criteria for staff), government
clearly discriminates among religions.
Thus far, I have argued that as a matter of principle
religious freedom is such a fundamental right that it ought
to prevail even if on occasion embracing that overriding
principle has the secondary effect of, for example, reducing
the number of job opportunities for a particular group. For
example, the Catholic Church must, as a matter of principle,
be free to live out its religious belief (which I do not
share) that only men should be priests, even if the practice
has the effect of reducing the number of job possibilities
for women.
My last point offers an argument, not about principle, but
about practical effect. The recent suggestion that extending
the hiring exemption to faith-based organizations (FBOs)
would in practice mean that African-Americans or gay
Americans would suffer a loss of job opportunities is simply
wrong.
There is a certain tension between two treasured values: on
the one hand, protecting the religious freedom and identity
of FBOs as they expand their effective services to the most
needy; on the other, our society's conviction that except in
the case of a narrow range of specific situations, employers
should not discriminate on the basis of religion.
But do such hiring preferences really result in job
deprivation? Hardly at all.
First, we are talking about a small percentage of the total
jobs in the society. Second, many FBOs pay almost no
attention to the religious beliefs of staff. Third, in the
case of those evangelical Christian, Orthodox Jewish, and
Muslim FBOs that do, virtually all the different religious
groups have their own FBOs offering a hiring preference to
people who share their own beliefs.
For very understandable historical reasons, African-
Americans have been concerned that racial discrimination
might find
[[Page H4311]]
cover under the hiring exemption based on religious belief.
This is extremely unlikely to happen. FBOs working in
minority communities are run either by people of the same
racial group or by whites who have been at the forefront of
fighting racial prejudice.
What about sexual orientation? Few FBOs ask about or select
staff on the basis of sexual orientation. It is true that a
number of FBOs do say that staff should not be sexually
active outside marriage. But is that really so terrible--
especially for FBOs working to overcome poverty in a society
where a child growing up in a single-parent household is
eleven times more likely to be persistently poor than a
child growing up in a two-parent family?
Even if the hiring exemption in Charitable Choice were
expanded to a lot more government funding streams, sexually
(and openly) active gay Americans would face extremely little
job deprivation. The number in that group is very small and
the number of jobs affected is a minuscule fraction of the
total number of jobs. Gay FBOs exist and others can be formed
that give a hiring preference to those who share that
ethical/religious belief. Surely the well-educated gay
community does not want to block an enormously promising way
to overcome poverty and social decay for millions of
desperate Americans to avoid what in practice would at worst
mean only the loss of a handful of possible jobs.
Constitutionally, Charitable Choice strikes the right
balance between the no-establishment and free exercise
clauses of the First Amendment. Morally, it offers promise
for major progress in overcoming some of our most intractable
social problems. Politically, Charitable Choice and the
broader Faith-Based Initiatives have rightly become
identified with the widespread sense that we have lost our
way morally as a society. By remaining steadfastly opposed to
allowing religious organizations to contribute to solving
social problems, the Democrats harm our country as well as
their future electoral prospects. Only at great peril dare
Democrats be on the wrong side of today's widespread embrace
of religious faith's crucial contribution to social
wholeness. If that happens, they will deserve a repetition of
1972.
The fact is whether you are left or right in the faith-based
movement, you have to agree that you have to keep the principles of
religion if you are going to keep your spiritual vitality. Particularly
in urban America and in rural America, the churches and the vitality is
what needs to be brought into poverty and reaching out.
We can have a legitimate debate over whether government funds should
go in there. I believe it would help the programs. It has been an
historic right. But the amendment that is in front of us is not a
faith-based amendment. It's only allowing faith-based groups to
participate if they secularize and drop their unique faith.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a statement on
the policy councils from Congressman Danny Davis and me.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and Labor,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: For more
than forty years, one of the most unique and important
aspects of the Head Start program has been its emphasis on
parental involvement Head Start has enabled parents, as
representatives on Head Start policy councils, to participate
in making important decisions regarding budget, programming,
and personnel. As the Committee plans to mark up its Head
Start reauthorization bill this coming week, we believe that
preserving this structure of governance is fundamental to the
continued success of the program.
Under current law, Head Start boards of directors and
policy councils share the responsibility of managing a Head
Start program. This partnership helps to ensure that there is
a system of checks and balances in place and that the
important voices of experts in accounting, finance, and early
education are balanced with the equally important voices of
parents who have children in the program. Many of our
constituents who are involved with Head Start have told us
that policy council members, especially parents, often have a
much greater day-to-day knowledge of the program than the
board of directors and are thus better able to provide
accountability. Indeed, a 2005 GAO report found that calls
from parents are often the first signal to Head Start
regional offices that a program is struggling with
mismanagement.
As the Education and Labor Committee prepares for its
markup, we want to ensure that it does not diminish the role
of parent policy councils. We believe this would undermine
the future success of the Head Start program and, in turn,
the success of thousands of at-risk children and their
parents. Like both of you, we believe there should be
stronger accountability within Head Start programs. The 2005
GAO report, for example, cited a lack of oversight from the
HHS regional offices and Head Start boards of directors as
sizable obstacles to improved accountability. However, these
reforms need not come at the expense of parental involvement
in the program. Any Head Start reauthorization bill must
preserve the current oversight role of the policy councils
with regard to board actions in key areas such as budget,
programming, and personnel, if they are to maintain their
current vital role within the program.
Again, we ask that the chairman's mark of the Head Start
reauthorization bill retain the current shared governance
structure of the policy councils and board of directors. The
current structure has helped to successful1y prepare hundreds
of thousands of low-income children to enter kindergarten and
empowered thousands of parents to take greater roles in the
lives of their children and communities. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please
contact Jill Hunter-Williams with Rep. Davis at 225-5006 or
Brett Swearingen with Rep. Souder at 225-4436.
Sincerely,
Danny K. Davis; Donald M. Payne; Robert C. Scott; Linda
T. Sanchez; John F. Terney; David Wu; John A. Yarmuth.
Mark Souder; Ric Keller; Todd Russell Platts; Rob Bishop;
Timothy Walberg; Raul M. Grijalva; Virginia Foxx.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we do have one final speaker before my
closing remarks.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule and strong support of
the reauthorization of the Improving Head Start Act of 2007.
As a former member of the Education and Workforce Committee over the
last 10 years, I have been heavily involved in Head Start programs, the
reauthorization process in previous Congresses, and had an opportunity
to visit many of the Head Start centers throughout my congressional
district throughout western Wisconsin. They are doing a terrific job
not only helping our children, typically, who are very high-risk, high-
need children, get off to literally a head start when it comes to their
individual development and education, but also working very closely, as
my friend from Indiana just highlighted previously, the close
partnership with the parents of those children, which is crucial to the
success of this program.
I want to commend the members of the committee for producing this
product, in particular Chairman Miller and chairman of the
subcommittee, Dale Kildee, along with Ranking Member Castle and Ranking
Member Buck McKeon. I know a lot of them have collaborated and worked
closely to produce this.
There are two features in particular that I want to highlight and
commend. One is making sure we get the measurements of these kids done
right. I led the effort in previous Congresses to see if we could
suspend the National Reporting System. This was based on studies that
the National Academy of Sciences had made asking us to slow down in
this assessment and standard practice until they could develop what
they feel are the proper forms of measurement for kids at this age,
because if we get that wrong, they said, we could actually do more harm
to the children with improper measurements and assessments than doing
good.
I am glad to see that this legislation now recognizes that suspension
of the National Reporting System gives the National Academy of Sciences
a chance to report back with recommendations and guidelines on what
proper measurements of these children should be.
The second feature is requiring programs to consult with child care
health experts in developing proper nutrition and physical education
programs for kids at this age.
In light of childhood obesity and type 2 juvenile diabetes, it's
going to be important that we do everything we can to make sure that
our kids are getting off to the right start when it comes to quality-
of-life issues, make sure that they are not going to start smoking or
taking drugs, but also taking the proper nutrition and involved in the
proper physical activities to make sure that
[[Page H4312]]
they have healthy bodies to go along with the healthy minds that Head
Start is meant to produce.
Those two provisions in particular I commend, and I encourage a
strong bipartisan vote for this important bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
my distinguished colleague and friend from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority pays lip service to their
support of religious people and faith-based groups, but now they are
here today, in this House, enacting a piece of legislation that I
believe is a shot across the bow to all faith-based organizations that
are involved in social services in this country. The Head Start bill
today says that if you participate in the grant process, you will not
be able to hire like-minded people to work in your child-care facility.
The Democrats are saying that a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., has
more wisdom to decide who you can and can't hire than the hundreds,
thousands of small businesses that run these Head Start programs. The
Democrats are essentially saying, with this legislation, while we thank
you for your tireless dedication and recognize that you are an integral
part of this process, we don't trust you to make fair choices in the
employees that you hire.
Don't be misled. This is in direct contradiction to the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court, both of which came to the conclusion
that faith-based organizations had the right to hire employees on a
religious basis. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues
and other faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of
communities all across America. Many of these organizations provide
assistance and services to the neediest members of society, offering a
helping hand to the less fortunate among us. Many faith-based
organizations can and want to make a vital contribution to the Federal
assistance programs.
The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of
religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring
practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-
based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an
exercise of the organization's civil liberties and does not constitute
discrimination under Federal law.
The freedom to hire those who share religious beliefs was upheld in a
unanimous 1987 Supreme Court decision, Corporation of the Presiding
Bishop v. Amos, in which the Court observed, ``A law is not
unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion,
which is their very purpose. For a law to have forbidden 'effect' . . .
it must be fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion
through its own activities and influence.''
Now, in an attempt to appease Republicans and conservative Democrats,
an alternative amendment will be provided by the gentleman from North
Carolina. This amendment, in effect, praises the work of faith-based
organizations, but tells them they have to give up their right to hire
who they want to hire to participate in Head Start.
{time} 1200
Current Federal law protects the Civil Rights Act hiring protections
for faith-based organizations and providers. And, indeed, as was stated
earlier by a previous speaker, President Bill Clinton signed four laws
protecting religious organizations in this context.
Now, I want to close by just pointing out a very, very simple fact.
There is a reason why on the floor today the amendment to correct this
problem will not be allowed, and the reason is because it will pass. A
majority of this Congress, Republicans working with Blue Dog Democrats,
would pass the Fortuno amendment which would protect these faith-based
religious organizations. We had many of the Blue Dogs vote with us on
this issue in the past. But, alas, under this rule, and it is why I am
imploring my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on
this rule, that amendment will not be allowed and we will be asked to
stifle the freedom of religion in the United States.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I thank my friend, Ms.
Castor, for the time and her courtesy, and all those who have
participated in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so that I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the
amendment offered by Congressman Price of Georgia, which seeks to make
regulations for emergency rear door exits and safety belts on vehicles
used to transport children effective upon enactment of H.R. 1429. This
extremely important amendment was denied by the Democrats in the
majority last night in the Rules Committee.
In 1992, Congress required the issuance of regulations related to
rear door emergency exits and safety restraints on Head Start
transportation. Since the final rule for these new regulations was
published in 2001, the effective date has been delayed three times.
Mr. Speaker, Congress required these regulations in order to ensure
the safe operation of vehicles by Head Start agencies. Currently, the
leading cause of death for children ages 3 to 7 is motor vehicle
traffic crashes. Further delaying these requirements means allowing
Head Start grantees to transport children using vehicles that are not
designed specifically for the safe transport of children.
If the previous question is defeated, the Price amendment would be
made in order and this delay would be put to an end. This issue, Mr.
Speaker, needs to be resolved, and it needs to be resolved now and this
authorization bill is clearly the most appropriate forum in which to do
so. Any further delays in the implementation of these crucial safety
regulations for children may endanger the lives of children.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance
of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Improving Head
Start Act of 2007 and this rule so that we infuse Head Start with the
necessary investments and program enhancements that will sustain Head
Start for years to come. We will chart a new course in the right
direction by ensuring family incomes do not impede a child's access to
educational opportunities.
The fact that the administration and the past few Congresses did not
keep the promise to America's children is unfortunate. We have lost
ground. But the good news is that this new Democratic Congress is
charting a new direction. This includes wise investments in the
education and health of our kids, which are certain to pay dividends
for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for America. The Congress is
going to keep the promise made 4 decades ago to children who are born
with the same potential but, because of their life circumstances, are
in need of a little extra attention, health care, nutrition, the
guiding hand of a knowledgeable, talented, devoted teacher, and a true
head start.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. RES. 348
Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Price
of Georgia or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable
for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Page 36, after line 12, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
``(3) Emergency exit doors.--
``(A) Effective date.--Section 1310.12(a) of title 45, Code
of Federal Regulations, shall become effective on the
effective date of this paragraph.
``(B) Covered vehicles.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any vehicle used
[[Page H4313]]
to transport children for a Head Start program after
effective date of this paragraph, shall be subject to a
requirement under such section (including a requirement based
on the definitions set forth or referenced in section 1310.3
or any other provision set forth or referenced in part 1310
of such title, or any corresponding similar regulation or
ruling) concerning rear exit doors.''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 348 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 348, if ordered; and adoption of H.
Res. 350, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 273]
YEAS--226
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Ferguson
Gillibrand
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Pitts
Schmidt
Sullivan
[[Page H4314]]
{time} 1231
Messrs. REGULA, BILIRAKIS, BURGESS, WALSH of New York and HUNTER
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 196, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 274]
YEAS--226
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Ferguson
Gillibrand
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Pitts
Sullivan
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised we are
at the 2-minute mark.
{time} 1239
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________